March 29, 2012

Calling a man of Italian ancestry "Tony" when that isn't his nickname? Isn't that on the level of calling a Latino "Jose" or a black man "Leroy" (or some such stereotypical name)?

Of course, quite aside from that, the blog post is bilge:

I think Justice Antonin Scalia isn't even really trying any more. It's been clear for some time now that he's short-timing his job on the Supreme Court. The job bores him.... he's now bringing Not Giving A Fuck to an almost operatic level.

Opera... see? That's like talking about a black person and throwing in watermelon.

His "originalism" was always a shuck, even if it was consistent, which it rarely was, and even if it was principled, which it never was.... But at least, for a while, he actually tried to act like a judge in a democratic republic, and not the lost Medici pope.

Pope? More anti-Italian (and anti-Catholic) stereotyping crap, which Pierce probably thinks is just fine, indeed hilarious, because it's against a conservative.

It is plain now that Scalia simply doesn't like the Affordable Care Act on its face.... He doesn't think that the people who would benefit from the law deserve to have a law that benefits them. On Tuesday, he pursued the absurd "broccoli" analogy... And today, apparently, he ran through every twist and turn in the act's baroque political history in an attempt to discredit the law politically, rather than as a challenge to its constitutionality. (What in hell does the "Cornhusker Kickback" — yet another term of art that the Justice borrowed from the AM radio dial — have to do with the severability argument? Is Scalia seriously making the case that a banal political compromise within the negotiations from which bill eventually is produced can affect its ultimate constitutionality? Good luck ever getting anything passed if that's the standard.)

Pierce just doesn't understand what the Cornhusker Kickback has to do with the severability argument. He smears Scalia, but he doesn't do the basic work of fathoming the argument. He denounces without earning the right to denounce, and instead of saying anything of any value about law he flips out over into the ethnic insults.

Here's the portion of the severability argument — transcript PDF — where Scalia talks about the Cornhusker Kickback:

JUSTICE SCALIA: All right. The consequence of your proposition, would Congress have enacted it without this provision....

That is, Paul Clement's argument — attacking the statute — is that the test of what is severable — what will fall along with the unconstitutional provision — is whatever Congress would pass if it were asked to vote on the bill with the unconstitutional provision extracted.

That would mean that if we struck down nothing in this legislation but the -- what's it called, the Cornhusker kickback, okay, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, okay? (Laughter.)

Maybe there should be a constitutional rule like the one Scalia hypothesizes. That is a quick attack on the political process that produced the bill, but it's actually not irrelevant to the question of severability, because there's a question about deferring to democratic decisionmaking, and that deference is less justified when the process itself is dysfunctional democracy. But the function of the Cornhusker kickback in the hypothetical is mainly, simply, that one provision of a big statute has been stricken down.

JUSTICE SCALIA: When we strike that down, it's clear that Congress would not have passed it without that. It was the means of getting the last necessary vote in the Senate. And you are telling us that the whole statute would fall because the Cornhusker kickback is bad. That can't be right.

So Justice Scalia has landed a brutal attack on Clement's theory of severability at that point. The hypothetical was knife-sharp and brilliant. But Pierce can't even understand it — or lies about his incapacity.

MR. CLEMENT: Well, Justice Scalia, I think it can be, which is the basic proposition, that it's congressional intent that governs. Now everybody on this Court has a slightly different way of divining legislative intent. And I would suggest the one common ground among every member of this Court, as I understand it, is you start with the text. Everybody can agree with that.

So Clement readjusts and begins to articulate a text-based approach to severability, which he knows is more what Scalia wants, but he craftily preserves the other theory, which he knows some of the other Justices might prefer.

130 comments:

I saw the article after a lot of Progressives I know thought it was great.

It was poorly thought out and rather offensive --- though they never see that part of it.

They never seem to see the racism that they and their friends tend to be guilty of. That's why they smear Thomas in racist terms. Smeared Palin and Bachmann with sexism (apparently, they're nailing the WI LG with the same kind of nonsense). It's why we see Tom Hanks on stage with a guy in blackface at an event that had a remarkable lack of racial diversity (they could've been invisible in a snowstorm).

Scalia is a brilliant jurist. Even if I don't agree with his take --- the Democrats chose to remove severability, so if it fails for even tiny reasons, then that was their goal to try and stop SCOTUS from overturning it --- it was a smart take.

And one that the writer was too dumb to recognize was more beneficial to his side than any Progressive thinker or jurist on the Left side of the court had come up with.

Nice takedown of Pierce. You could spend all your time doing nothing but knocking down similar stuff elsewhere in blogland. The comment thread at Esquire following the article is even more bizarre -- lots of insipid drivel evidently intended to be cutting.

I think we should take it easy on Pierce. After all, the guy is a pommie and a limey with horrible teeth. His mother is ugly and she reeks of patchouli. He is a dorky geek who wears stupid underwear and couldn't get laid in a brothel full of fat, blind women.

I was listening to the sad leftist AM talk radio yesterday, driving my car, passing the time. I heard an extended ad from Media Matters about the Limbaugh fracas that ended with a plea for listener to call the local station that carries Limbaugh to say -- I kid you not -- that what Limbaugh did is no way to treat a lady.

And I thought, what we seem to have on the left today is a sort of flabby (philosophically) Victorian promiscuity as the highest value. That, and of course gayness. And free shit.

You dumb asses have come a long way from Mill, though not far from that moron Rousseau (speaking of ugly morons).

But, Les, tell us more about how Mexican professional wrestlers don't get laid. Because, yeah, that has to be true. Right?

I don't understand. What's wrong with a theory that if one provision of any act is found unconstitutional then (unless there are severability clauses) the whole act should be struck down? Congress is empowered to make the choices about severability should it want to. If the Cornhusker kickback would not be accepted if a severability clause were added then then the court would by severing it stop the Nebraskan electorate from having adequate representation in congress. Surely it has to be best if the rules about severability are well known so that congress can accurately draft legislation which accounts for the possibility of being struck down.

there are too many provisions, riders, clauses, etc. in the 2700 pages of this monstrosity to argue for complete strikedown of the ACA. in the case the mandate would be stricken, most justices had some very well founded concerns regarding severability.

the first has to do with the size of the legislation. the court's time is precious, and they just don't have the time to do this. scalia pretty much stated this overtly with the 8th amendment joke.

the second is power. does the court have the same powers as congress to surgically remove certain provisions they feel impacted? resoundingly no.

the third is unintended consequences. the justices do not know the impact, and how it would resonate with the other 2700 pages. i beleive all sides were arguing as to how integral the mandate was (e.g. just a tool vs. a very integral tool), and neither side really argued persuasively. this rides with point one above.

there's just too much grey area here for the judges to act in favor of Florida. the easiest thing for them to do at this point would be vote to sever and send back. it would represent the best option for the judges.

i say they vote to strike the publically hated mandate (5-4), and give Congress the option to regain some face (vote for severability 8-1, with thomas dissenting)

side bar-we all know there are calls already that this will be judicial activism. but what about the four judges who voted against? it's a double standard.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't even follow the Supreme court very closely, but I understood the Cornhusker Kickback reference at first hearing, and it actually tended to support the government's argument by making Clement try to draw a bright line on how important a provision must be in order to not be severable. Of course, to get that you have to actually read the transcript, which apparently Pierce did not do.

I'm Italian, but I definitely would not have read this as offensive to my heritage. I'm also certain that I've heard of Scalia being called Tony regularly, including by people he is friendly with. (I'm pretty sure that, if I remember The Nine correctly, the other justices call him that - could be wrong, though.)

That said, yes, Pierce's actual argument is incredibly stupid. (And I hate when people attempt to criticize a political figure by calling him or her an overly casual name - yes, that goes for people who refer to the President as "Barry", too.) What do they think that they're proving that way?

But my favorite Pierce "gem" is this, from 2004: "If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age."

Oh geez, what a wretched soul. He's fowarding the meme that Kennedy did "pennance" for killing Mary Jo by "serving the people" as a Congressman.

Kennedy: "So what if I left you to suffocate in the back of a car, I *believe* in welfare so that makes it all okay..."

What a farce. Pierce is already in Hell. Fine by me. Let him rot there.

Rey Misterio Jr gets laid plenty. I'd bet any amount. This proves my point perfectly. I mean, if Rey Misterio Jr is getting all the trim he gets, imagine what a normal-looking Lucha hero must be pulling.

Rey Misterio Jr gets laid plenty. I'd bet any amount. This proves my point perfectly. I mean, if Rey Misterio Jr is getting all the trim he gets, imagine what a normal-looking Lucha hero must be pulling.

He's married with kids, if memory serves. So, getting laid plenty is sketchy. Also looks 15 when he's nicely into his 30's.

Pierce and like-minded residents of the "elite" media echo chamber are losing their grip on the narrative. It has all been so easy up to now. No one who matters has questioned their ownership and mastery of the culture and its interpretation. They have not had to think deeply, or sometimes at all, about other points of view, other people.

I don't really expect conservatives or liberals to live up these standards. I expect principled people to live up them.

Except I don't feel un-PC thoughts as being all that bad. Rude, certainly. But rudeness is fine. I don't feel it is a major issue.

I'm not the one who supports jihads against people who offend certain sensibilities. Do I CARE that Bill Maher is a misogynist? No. No skin off my back. If a woman wants to be with him in spite of it, oh well. Not my problem. Free speech can be exceedingly ugly.

But if a certain political idealogy is going to have adherents who will tolerate Maher's rhetoric --- heck, applaud him for it --- AND proceed to bash Rush for far less coarse language and views, then they have issues to answer for.

If I'm going to see conservatives BLAMED for the shooting of Giffords for "harsh rhetoric" --- and then watch those same critics say far worse about conservatives, then there is an issue. A big one.

Conservatives stood up for that useless putz Don Imus when he driven off the air for basically nothing. I thought Maher being forced off ABC for making idiotic comments on P.I was dumb (the show being terrible was more than reason enough).

How many Progressives stood up for Rush with this absurd "scandal"? Kristen Powers is the closest I've seen to one. How many called out leftist commentators for comments about Palin that would've led to outrage if made about any Democratic woman? How many Progressives would be OK with an actor doing a voiceover in a documentary for a Republican candidate for President after he was nailed, on film, at an event with a guy in blackface in a lily-white gathering?

Principled people need to live up to their own standards before demanding I live up to the standards that I feel are fraudulent.

Rabel,Yes, how insightful of unknowledgeable Mr. Pierce.The quote about the zealot sounds familiar, a lot like the quote by Winston Churchill that "a fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

Here's the deal about "principled people": they don't demand that others live up to the standards of what's right before they will live up to them themselves.

What you aren't getting is that "what's right" is in dispute.

I don't advocate driving somebody off the air or costing them their job for saying something stupid.

There are a lot of Progressives who disagree --- yet a lot of Progressives have a tendency to just lightly toss out racist, sexist, etc comments about conservatives they don't agree with.

To THEM, doing such things is bad --- apparently, unless you don't agree with that person. Then it is peachy.

It's no better than having a Kennedy discuss the need for renewable energy like wind while simultaneously fighting a wind farm that might be visible from their compound. I don't buy global warming as a problem at all --- but people like him expect me to change my behavior "for the good of the planet" while they actively fight doing the same?

It's no better than Obama telling people to not take extravagant vacations while taking LOTS of extravagant vacations.

Now whether everyone agrees what "right" is, is something else again. But the "You go first" argument is strictly for children.

Again, I have no problem with offensive commentary. When Progressive activists who claim they find people like Rush's comments so offensive go after people like Maher who say far worse, I'll take them seriously.

Otherwise, I'll just point out their hypocrisy and label their "beliefs" as a scam.

Again, if you expect somebody to live up to a standard they eschew but you believe is important, you'd best live up to that standard first.

What does the cornhusker kickback have to do with the constitutionality of the ACA? Yes, Justice Scalia said that the ACA wouldn't have passed without the cornhusker kickback, but there's a slight problem with his claim. THE CORNHUSKER KICKBACK WAS STRIPPED OUT OF THE FINAL VERSION OF THE BILL! AKA, THE ACA DID PASS WITHOUT IT!!!!!!

What does the cornhusker kickback have to do with the constitutionality of the ACA? Yes, Justice Scalia said that the ACA wouldn't have passed without the cornhusker kickback, but there's a slight problem with his claim. THE CORNHUSKER KICKBACK WAS STRIPPED OUT OF THE FINAL VERSION OF THE BILL! AKA, THE ACA DID PASS WITHOUT IT!!!!!!

Can you do people a favor and actually READ THE POST YOU'RE RESPONDING TO?

The cornhusker kickback was SUBSEQUENTLY repealed in a separate piece of legislation. It was just too embarrassing a bribe to allow to stand. But it was part of Obamacare as passed and signed by the president. .

Calling a man of Italian ancestry "Tony" when that isn't his nickname?

Indeed, it’s pretty common knowledge that Justice Antonin Scalia’s nickname is “Nino.” As soon as I read that I thought “here’s a guy who knows nothing about the subject matter he’s writing about and trying to look clever but actually embarrassing himself in front of his readers who do.”

But since it’s Esquire magazine, the risk is probably not that great. ;)

This is an ideal opportunity for Pelosi to suffer the cruel and unusual punishment of actually reading what's in it and then reporting her findings to Scalia. I'm sure he'd be amenable to that arrangement.

1. He and his wife have nine children, so saying he does not give a fuck is inaccurate.2. His middle name is Gregory (after the Popes.)3. His father was in fact Sicilian.4. His wife's maiden name was McCarthy. She is not Sicilian. Nor is she related to Joe McCarthy,5. His immigrant father got himself educated and eventually became a Professor of Romance Languages. His immigrant mother was a schoolteacher.6. He went to a Jesuit high school in New York, where he was smarter than everybody, even the Jesuits. He was also smarter than everybody at Georgetown, Harvard Law School, the law firm Jones Day where he worked, at Virginia Law School where he taught me and on the Supreme Court.7. He was an extraordinarily popular teacher at Virginia even though he was a tough grader. (Or because.)8. He will not cross a picket line. I know, because after the Kent State and Jackson State killings in 1970, I was on a picket line that he would not cross.9. He has a wicked sense of humor, which he is often unable to contain.10. His children love him. He lectures throughout the country at colleges and law schools. He goes to Mass. One of his sons is a priest.11. He was confirmed by the Senate at Associate Justice by a vote of 98-0.12. He is in very good health.

He went to a Jesuit high school in New York, where he was smarter than everybody, even the Jesuits. He was also smarter than everybody at Georgetown, Harvard Law School, the law firm Jones Day where he worked, at Virginia Law School where he taught me and on the Supreme Court.

Maybe one of you geniuses might want to remind your fearless, clueless leader that the so-called Cornhusker kickback NEVER made it to the final bill- it ain't there, and is utterly irrelevant.

Of course, Scalia spewed all manner of Teabag talking points, in an effort to undermine the arguments for the ACA. The point is, he displayed the kind of intellectual dishonesty and legal dissembling reminiscent of a Mob lawyer. Brilliant he may be, but he is a dreadful example of jurisprudence subordinated to ideology, and a disgrace to the fundamental American idea of an independent federal judiciary.

Somewhat off topic, but not really: Scalia has repeatedly revealed himself to be a nasty piece of work, given to sarcasm and scorn. Not really ideal qualities in any jurist, but in a Supreme Court Justice it actually demeans the whole character of the Court.

And- Althouse trying to take down Pierce? Really??!! You're a couple of hundred re-incarnations short of that task, Dearie.

Well, is not his given christian name Antonin: Nickname would be Tony or Anthony. Now if his given christian name were Robert or Joseph...Then yes! I would think given his stature, not referring to him as Associate Justice should be more offending. And more offending is how all of these Justices allow their clerks to stove pipe them information...Cornhusker kickback. Or perhaps they don't live in that bubble that we fantasise them to be. Indeed!

Ms. Althouse you just fail to perceived what a great man Charles P. Pierece is. Why he's been a working journalist since 1976--and he has erudite reasoning (fully on display in his most recent blog post) and keen logic with a razor sharp wit.

That at least is what you might think from reading a promotional blurb for one of his new books. In its knob slobbering grandeur, it can only have been written by Ta Da! You guessed it--Charles P. Pierce. Here it is.

The Culture Wars Are Over and the Idiots Have Won

A veteran journalist's acidically funny, righteously angry lament about the glorification of ignorance in the United States.

In the midst of a career-long quest to separate the smart from the pap, Charles Pierce had a defining moment at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, where he observed a dinosaur. Wearing a saddle.... But worse than this was when the proprietor exclaimed to a cheering crowd, “We are taking the dinosaurs back from the evolutionists!” He knew then and there it was time to try and salvage the Land of the Enlightened, buried somewhere in this new Home of the Uninformed.

With his razor-sharp wit and erudite reasoning, Pierce delivers a gut-wrenching, side-splitting lament about the glorification of ignorance in the United States, and how a country founded on intellectual curiosity has somehow deteriorated into a nation of simpletons more apt to vote for an American Idol contestant than a presidential candidate.

With Idiot America, Pierce's thunderous denunciation is also a secret call to action, as he hopes that somehow, being intelligent will stop being a stigma, and that pinheads will once again be pitied, not celebrated. .

How about Stanley Fish, American literary theorist and legal scholar. Not some anonymous crank on a blog, in other words.

A snippet from his essay "Two Cheers For Double Standards". (As if the title alone does not tell you all you need to know)

I know the objections to what I have said here. It amounts to an apology for identity politics. It elevates tribal obligations over the universal obligations we owe to each other as citizens. It licenses differential and discriminatory treatment on the basis of contested points of view. It substitutes for the rule "don't do it to them if you don't want it done to you" the rule "be sure to do it to them first and more effectively." It implies finally that might makes right. I can live with that.

And yet we still have to put up with liberals scoffing at the notion that liberals sometimes do as they say and are utterly cynical about double standards.

I guess that this Charles Pierce is not to be confused with "Charles Sanders Peirce (September 10, 1839 – April 19, 1914) ... born at 3 Phillips Place in Cambridge, Massachusetts. ... An innovator in mathematics, statistics, philosophy, research methodology, and various sciences, ... As early as 1886 he saw that logical operations could be carried out by electrical switching circuits, the same idea as was used decades later to produce digital computers." from Wikipedia

I see no reason to think any further about this Charles Pierce as he is a blithering idiot.

Once gay marriage will come to the Supreme Court Althouse will comment, "yes Scalia has a very good point about the gays and Seabiscuit". I support gay marriage, Althouse will say, but what about the gay doing dogs=Scalia makes and excellent point and he is the best most amazing judge ever....but I am a demo-I voted for Obama.

But Scalia is totally right about the gays and man on dog sex.

As a result, my entire audience is totally wingnut and I thank you for your patronage. Now buy the new Ipad idiots.

Goodness, the Dittoheads are offended. Once again, we see self-styled conservatives braying about how smart their guy is. Intellectual penis envy, from the home-schooled mob that thinks Newt has big ideas, Ryan is a misunderstood genius, and Scalia's broccoli analogy (a Teabag favorite) is a masterstroke of legal polemics.

Honest citizens (and jurists, too!) can honestly disagree about the ACA's constitutional standing. But, when one conservative justice's wife is a well-paid political operative for those working to strike down this bill, and at least 2 other conservative justices enjoy weekend retreats and quiet dinners with the plutocrats who are cynically spending millions to defeat the ACA, the fix is in.

The reflexive- and, frankly, wretchedly executed- posturing from Ms. Outhouse and other right wing gossoons is little more than a sour joke.

Yes, it's CONSERVATIVES who routinely comment on how brilliant their candidates are while discussing how idiotic their opponents are.

Happens all of the time.

Intellectual penis envy, from the home-schooled mob that thinks Newt has big ideas, Ryan is a misunderstood genius, and Scalia's broccoli analogy (a Teabag favorite) is a masterstroke of legal polemics.

As opposed to the side who were convinced that John Kerry was really, really bright; that Obama was brilliant; that no SCOTUS justice could possibly have an actual problem.

Maybe one of you geniuses might want to remind your fearless, clueless leader that the so-called Cornhusker kickback NEVER made it to the final bill- it ain't there, and is utterly irrelevant.

It was passed, signed, and repealed later.

But, yes, it made it to the final bill.

Honest citizens (and jurists, too!) can honestly disagree about the ACA's constitutional standing. But, when one conservative justice's wife is a well-paid political operative for those working to strike down this bill, and at least 2 other conservative justices enjoy weekend retreats and quiet dinners with the plutocrats who are cynically spending millions to defeat the ACA, the fix is in.

...meanwhile, one of the justices personally worked on the defense of the bill, another was busy in session assisting the SG make arguments.

But that isn't a problem.

The reflexive- and, frankly, wretchedly executed- posturing from Ms. Outhouse and other right wing gossoons is little more than a sour joke.

I notice you didn't actually provide any legal justification of the Congress creating commerce in order to regulate it.

I just get a kick out of hearing it from the left... since I have an iq over 145.... and most leftists I talk to can not explain their views outside of simplistic 'republicans are mean' type arguments...

Your argument against Pierce's is so ridiculous it falls on its face. First, trying to glean some anti-Italian bias out what he said is laughable. Because he noted that Scalia's carelessness is operatic that is you smoking gun. Being an instructor and an outstanding school, I'm rather shocked that ideas of metaphor have been lost on you. Had you considered that by referring to opera, Pierce was remarking on the over-the-top nature of Scalia's Not-Give-A-Fuckness, rather than some veiled anti-Italianism. Similarly, you admonish the headline for referring to him as Tony--again suggesting that it is somehow a marker of anti-Italian bigotry. Had he called Scalia Guido, you might have a case, but Tony is popularly derived from Antonin. You correctly point out that Scalia does not refer to himself as "Tony" but that merely shows that Pierce has no regard for Scalia as a justice, and probably as a person, but it has no relation to your fantastical implications of bigotry. (and the anti-Catholic canard is merely playing into the popular right-wing horse manure that somehow, in a nation in which the VAST majority of people self-identify as christian, christians are somehow persecuted. I know you want to be, but it just isn't the truth.)

Finally, to the business of the so-called Cornhusker Kickback, it is a stupid point to make in the hearing because that provision didn't even make it into the final bill! So, Scalia bringing it up has nothing to do with judging the constitutionality of the bill in question; rather he is showing himself to be more interested in belching out talking points that he heard on the radio.

So, in sum, Pierce was merely pointing out that Scalia is a disingenuous, overly-partisan hypocrite who should probably retire since it's clear that he does not have the slightest interest in his job anymore, preferring to grandstand and show that he is merely an egomaniacal bully.

This: We know that the Cornhusker kickback — AKA the Nebraska Compromise — was a deal made by Harry Reid to get the vote of Senator Ben Nelson, the last hold-out among the Democrats. The state of Nebraska got 100% funding for Medicaid, unlike all the other states, so that extra funding to Nebraska approaches vote-buying.

Now we know that not only are you a drunk blogger, but that you're a lying one as well.

First, I agree Kagan should recuse herself. Second, I agree it was criminally naive for ACA supporters to suppose they could convince such obvious idealogues as Scalia, Thomas, and Alito- which makes us both right, I guess. Third, the 'Cornhusker kickback' is NOT in the bill under consideration by the court, so knock it off already. Fourth, neither one of us is arguing the legal merits of this case: I'm questioning the intellectual honesty of movement conservatives; you're questioning...exactly what?

We think Obama is brilliant? Nooo, the conservative scholars on the Harvard Law Review enthusiastically joined their liberal brethren to elect Obama editor of said review. Can't blame that one on affirmative action, chum.

Look, no one forced you folks to swoon and moon over Dubya, Screeching Sarah, and this season's crop of brain-dead Republican candidates. You couldn't wait to let the rest of us know just how seriously we should consider all these frauds and malcontents. You farted; don't blame us for smelling it.

To me the Cornhusker Kickback is a great example of how the legislative process should work. It was so odious and made such bad press that it was stripped from the bill. Fix the bill in Congress, not in SCOTUS. We have the most dysfunctional health care system in the industrialized world - no coverage for preexisting conditions or part time workers, low lifetime limits, 50M without coverage etc,etc. Heaven forbid we try to make it work a little better using a sane republican (30 to 10 years ago) market mandate formula.

Recognizing that in today's environment facts just don't matter, I foolishly weigh in on the Charlie Pierce quote ‘If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age.’ HOLD ON. The truth is that Pierce was employing irony in the service of a breathtakingly vicious putdown of Kennedy, in the midst of a profile that was far, far tougher than the Kennedys are accustomed to receiving in the Globe. The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto, an honest conservative, accurately described what Pierce had written as a “paragraph of pure poison.” And a letter-writer to the Globe Magazine divined that Pierce had written “a savage attack” on Kennedy. Just thought you should have the rest of the story.